Abortion
- Thread starter Julian The Apostate
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
chaos
Buzzfeed Editor
- 17,324
- 4,839
Did you even read what you quoted? At what point did I say that I condemn everyone who gets an abortion?
Yeah, you're not condemning them you're just saying they're doing something immoral. Great. Thanks.
chaos
Buzzfeed Editor
- 17,324
- 4,839
Yes, they are. You mad? People do immoral shit every day. I cut some guy off on the freeway today, that was immoral. And the universe stands indifferent to my immoral activities.
I'm mad at your blatant attempt at dishonesty. They're not doing anything immoral, in spite your condemnation (which at least now you admit to) because life doesn't "begin at conception" because chemical processes don't have any moral weight. Sorry.
chaos
Buzzfeed Editor
- 17,324
- 4,839
To you. I hate to hurt your feelings bro, I'm not being dishonest, and I'm not condemning anyone, or admitting anything. I stand by what I wrote then and now. If your simple worldview leaves you unable to accept that then whatever, don't.
And lol at "chemical processes don't have any moral weight." And you say that all authoritatively, as if you know what the fuck you're talking about. And yet you attribute "moral weight" to consciousness derived from chemical processes. So only certain chemical processes? What are the moral chemistry rules in your world? Do tell.
You wereabsolutelybeing dishonest by insinuating that those statements were not condemnations of people who get abortions. I realize that you're kind of a fucking moron so you probably thought you'd be able to slip that one past but (also because you're kind of a fucking moron) you will never be able to do that to me.
I do, actually.
Chemical processes that involve the current running of a mind have moral weight. Other chemical processes don't. Any attempt to suggest otherwise is fucking stupid (and probably theological).
chaos
Buzzfeed Editor
- 17,324
- 4,839
I'm not slipping shit by anyone. I don't condemn everyone who commits an immoral act. People do it all day every day. Maybe you do, I don't. You're kind of being a faggot with this. Those statements you quoted didn't even address people who have abortions.
They're not important morally. Any other position than that is beyond fucking stupid.
lol
To call something an immoral act is, itself, a condemnation of the person who commits the act. That's what those words mean. Like me knocking down someone's house for no good reason is an immoral act. It's not an immoral act when a hurricane does it (because hurricanes are not moral actors). In talking about the morality of abortions you are (intentionally or not) making explicit claims about the morality of people who get abortions.
Pancreas
Vyemm Raider
- 1,135
- 3,831
The moment sperm meets egg, a genetically unique instance of the human species is created. It is the earliest stage of a human. If this egg does not mature and develop, that exact same human organism will never be seen again without some serious technological intervention.
We know it is human because of the DNA it contains. We know it is alive, because if it were dead we wouldn't be having this conversation. There is no real third state for biological organisms, Schrodinger's cat showed us that much. (Unless you start talking about things that can go into death like states of stasis... but if you did I would tell you to fuck off with your obscure references that do not concern the issue at hand.)
Like I said, life began a long time ago, but each new instance of human life begins at conception. We have determined that we are sufficiently aware of the consequences of interfering with this process, to allow the prevention of life from developing. This carries with it a weight of responsibility.
If someone finds it difficult to say, "We are preventing humans from being born", and would rather say, "We are just preventing cells from multiplying", they have deep rooted issues with the concept. It is dishonest to muddy the discussion with what constitutes a living organism, to try and absolve us of being ultimately responsible for our actions.
We know it is human because of the DNA it contains. We know it is alive, because if it were dead we wouldn't be having this conversation. There is no real third state for biological organisms, Schrodinger's cat showed us that much. (Unless you start talking about things that can go into death like states of stasis... but if you did I would tell you to fuck off with your obscure references that do not concern the issue at hand.)
Like I said, life began a long time ago, but each new instance of human life begins at conception. We have determined that we are sufficiently aware of the consequences of interfering with this process, to allow the prevention of life from developing. This carries with it a weight of responsibility.
If someone finds it difficult to say, "We are preventing humans from being born", and would rather say, "We are just preventing cells from multiplying", they have deep rooted issues with the concept. It is dishonest to muddy the discussion with what constitutes a living organism, to try and absolve us of being ultimately responsible for our actions.
What is the moral relevance of DNA?
I've already talked about this sort of equivocation and why I think that notion of "life" in the context of the abortion debate isprofoundlymisleading. I don't think life in that extremely overly-literal sense of the word has moral significance. My blood cells are also alive, but they do not have moral weight. When someone says "life begins at conception" I'm sorry, but at that point we ARE just talking about preventing cells from multiplying. I think trying to insinuate that those cells (rather than what they may eventually produce) are imbued with some special meaning is much more indicative of "deep rooted issues with the concept" than a recognition that zygotes aren't people in any meaningful sense. Sorry, but I don't believe in magic.
TrollfaceDeux
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 19,577
- 3,743
Pancreas
Vyemm Raider
- 1,135
- 3,831
The moral relevance of the DNA is that it determines what species we are talking about here. We aren't talking about duck fetuses or cows or kangaroos, we are talking about people. The DNA found in those cells is human, therefore it is a human organism. And we tend to treat issues relating to humans with more thought and concern than with other species.
So, why do women get abortions? What is the goal of that process? What are they trying to prevent? What do we know will most likely happen if they don't get the abortion? Answer those questions and you will see where the moral implications of the action come in.
The goal of abortion is not to simply prevent cells from multiplying, the goal is to prevent a human life from occurring. That is the reason abortions are conducted. There is no arguing that point. No matter what you define the state of a zygote to be, the goal of abortion will never change.
That goal, no matter what actions you take to achieve it, has real moral implications. To focus the debate on whether a simple developing organism has the right to live or not is false. Humans never stop developing. The process that starts at the moment of conception never stops, it changes in scope over time, but never truly ends.
And as far as comparing the fertilized egg to your blood cells, that is an inaccurate comparison. The early zygote and the few cells contained within represent the entirety of a new, unique and separate organism. So comparing all of the cells in the zygote to ALL of the cells in your body would be more accurate. You are both living organisms with unique genetic codes which are actually 99.9% identical, and you both have the ability to produce new cells and grow. The only differences between you two, at this point, are ones of functionality and appearance.
So, why do women get abortions? What is the goal of that process? What are they trying to prevent? What do we know will most likely happen if they don't get the abortion? Answer those questions and you will see where the moral implications of the action come in.
The goal of abortion is not to simply prevent cells from multiplying, the goal is to prevent a human life from occurring. That is the reason abortions are conducted. There is no arguing that point. No matter what you define the state of a zygote to be, the goal of abortion will never change.
That goal, no matter what actions you take to achieve it, has real moral implications. To focus the debate on whether a simple developing organism has the right to live or not is false. Humans never stop developing. The process that starts at the moment of conception never stops, it changes in scope over time, but never truly ends.
And as far as comparing the fertilized egg to your blood cells, that is an inaccurate comparison. The early zygote and the few cells contained within represent the entirety of a new, unique and separate organism. So comparing all of the cells in the zygote to ALL of the cells in your body would be more accurate. You are both living organisms with unique genetic codes which are actually 99.9% identical, and you both have the ability to produce new cells and grow. The only differences between you two, at this point, are ones of functionality and appearance.
They get an abortion so that they won't have a thinking, aware, morally significant and therefore reponsibility-causing human being develop out of what is not yet that.
That is also the goal of condoms. If DNA has moral significance, how many are cheated by our decadently low fertility rates? Shouldn't we be seeking as many of these unique snowflakes as we possibly can? If it's a person's life being cut short by abortion and not the prevention of cells from replicating because the purpose is to prevent a human life from occurring, then think how much greater is this holocaust of wasted DNA caused by contraception.
My God...the masturbation!
So what?
Except that I need the cells in my body because I'm already a person. If I weren't a person (like if I died and became a corpse) then I wouldn't need them. Also if I had never become a person in the first place (like I didn't have any level of consciousness whatsoever) then I also wouldn't need them.
Yeah well some of that functionality happens to matter in moral terms for the reasons I've outlined above.
Pancreas
Vyemm Raider
- 1,135
- 3,831
There are moral implications to using contraception as well. We are dictating when we believe parenthood should occur. Lots of men and women are now waiting until later in life to have a child. Contraception helps them achieve this. Some of this waiting increases the chances of birth defects. Every action we condone may result in effects we didn't intend. The use of contraceptives also makes the statement that sex can be recreation and not reserved for procreation. Some contraceptive methods come with health risks, what is the moral implication of promoting these techniques. Generally our society considers most of those issues minor compared to the benefits of using condoms and other contraception and I tend to agree.
The loss of sperm cells is a much more accurate comparison to your blood cell analogy. And the loss of either is minor as there will be more where those came from. Fertilized eggs and embryos however are unique, you lose one and it's never coming back. So more consideration should be put into whether or not they should be destroyed.
The decision to stop a human organism before a particular stage of development is an arbitrary one. This accepted stage has varied throughout history. The Romans believed any deformed children should be terminated quickly after birth. Aristotle believed that abortion was morally fine 40 days after conception for males, and 90 days after for female embryos. Why would any classification system have a valid claim over another? Each is determined by what that society considers acceptable.
So awareness is the requirement for your classification system. Anything not aware can be terminated with no moral consideration. Why does this method of labeling, when something can be terminated, carry more weight than any other?
I say that making any point in human development morally irrelevant is wrong. If we permit termination in the early stages of early development, then we simply accept that is what we are doing, and realize we prevented a human being from developing.
To say that our own inefficient reproduction system is already aborting eggs does not absolve us of our responsibility. Nature also lights people on fire, swallows villages whole, causes famines and poisons us regularly. All are activities we don't rush to mimic. Also, once an egg gets beyond early development, the body stops this process. It takes health complications or external factors for a mother to lose the child. Almost all abortions take place well after any natural inefficiencies may have occurred, so to draw a parallel there is not quite honest. The terminated embryo already made it past the natural vetting process.
Either way if we look to nature for moral guidance we are going to be in serious trouble. When we step in and start preventing nature from running it's course, we need to seriously consider the effects our actions may have. To dismiss such concerns because they don't meet our current definition of what we deem relevant, is arrogant and usually leads to bigger issues.
The loss of sperm cells is a much more accurate comparison to your blood cell analogy. And the loss of either is minor as there will be more where those came from. Fertilized eggs and embryos however are unique, you lose one and it's never coming back. So more consideration should be put into whether or not they should be destroyed.
The decision to stop a human organism before a particular stage of development is an arbitrary one. This accepted stage has varied throughout history. The Romans believed any deformed children should be terminated quickly after birth. Aristotle believed that abortion was morally fine 40 days after conception for males, and 90 days after for female embryos. Why would any classification system have a valid claim over another? Each is determined by what that society considers acceptable.
So awareness is the requirement for your classification system. Anything not aware can be terminated with no moral consideration. Why does this method of labeling, when something can be terminated, carry more weight than any other?
I say that making any point in human development morally irrelevant is wrong. If we permit termination in the early stages of early development, then we simply accept that is what we are doing, and realize we prevented a human being from developing.
To say that our own inefficient reproduction system is already aborting eggs does not absolve us of our responsibility. Nature also lights people on fire, swallows villages whole, causes famines and poisons us regularly. All are activities we don't rush to mimic. Also, once an egg gets beyond early development, the body stops this process. It takes health complications or external factors for a mother to lose the child. Almost all abortions take place well after any natural inefficiencies may have occurred, so to draw a parallel there is not quite honest. The terminated embryo already made it past the natural vetting process.
Either way if we look to nature for moral guidance we are going to be in serious trouble. When we step in and start preventing nature from running it's course, we need to seriously consider the effects our actions may have. To dismiss such concerns because they don't meet our current definition of what we deem relevant, is arrogant and usually leads to bigger issues.
There are no moral implications with regard to the use of condoms. There are no moral implications to determining when (or even if) parenthood should occur. There are some moral implications to having children later in life, but there are other options (like adoption). But you know...DNA is sacred or whatever so I guess that's not as good. The statement that sex can be a recreation and not reserved for procreation is not only correct, it's demonstrably so (I can provide video evidence if you like).
...let's see....more dna is sacred stuff...
The decision to stop a human organism before a particular stage of development certainly has moral gradient, but to say that it's not totally white at least at the moment of conception I think reduces to a fundamentally magical claim.
The reason I think my "method of labeling" carries more weight is because it uses what I consider to be a rational notion of identity that I believe is also in line with what we know from modern neuroscience.
So it looks like you missed the hypothetical: If we apply the standard of "life begins at conception" and we develop the medical ability to save zygotes, then I don't understand how that doesn't extend to an obligation to do so at the maximum rate possible. This absurdity mirrors pretty much exactly your superstitious notions that DNA is imbued with some special significances because it also happens to have a (almostdefinitely) unique structure. I mean surely we should be trying to raise the fertility rate as close as possible to the fecundity rate, right? How better to show our devotion than to invoke as much Unique DNA as possible? Are those potential lives lost by our failure to produce as many people as possible less valuable than those lost to abortion?
I general I just can't get behind this weird veneration of (unique!) dna.
...let's see....more dna is sacred stuff...
The decision to stop a human organism before a particular stage of development certainly has moral gradient, but to say that it's not totally white at least at the moment of conception I think reduces to a fundamentally magical claim.
The reason I think my "method of labeling" carries more weight is because it uses what I consider to be a rational notion of identity that I believe is also in line with what we know from modern neuroscience.
So it looks like you missed the hypothetical: If we apply the standard of "life begins at conception" and we develop the medical ability to save zygotes, then I don't understand how that doesn't extend to an obligation to do so at the maximum rate possible. This absurdity mirrors pretty much exactly your superstitious notions that DNA is imbued with some special significances because it also happens to have a (almostdefinitely) unique structure. I mean surely we should be trying to raise the fertility rate as close as possible to the fecundity rate, right? How better to show our devotion than to invoke as much Unique DNA as possible? Are those potential lives lost by our failure to produce as many people as possible less valuable than those lost to abortion?
I general I just can't get behind this weird veneration of (unique!) dna.